COM 0042.062 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

nsniora N WI'15LUn i~.~+,~~~~~ The Court fogowed the Nollan case with Dolan v. City of Tieard in 1994.There,the Court struck down a municipal bmlding permit condition that the landowner dedicate bike path and grewway/floodway casements to the citybefore the enlargement of a hardware store adjacent to a local stream. The purpox, according to the City, was to alleviate traffic problems and flooding which the expanded store wu expected to generate. The Couri agreed with the City that alleviating such problems was a legitimate state interest, and that bike lanes and goodway easements were appropriate means for ameliorating die problems, thus finding a required `hexes." However, the Court held that "the degree of the exactions d..:,.a~~ by d:e cit;~s p~s;.it caaditiaas [did aat]',,,,ar the trrture.^' rela:iarship to p^,,,jcetev impact ofpetitioner'a proposed development" (1 l4 S. Ct. at 2318). The Court thus imposed a rough proportionality test as well as a nexus test: "[TJhe city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development" (at 2319-2320) The pnsdtutiaca2 problem in both ittstzttees, said the Court, is "the loss of [their] ability to exclude" which the Corot reminds us is one of the arose essential sticks in the burxile of rights which characterize private property. Sce Collies and 13teenrer, The Right to Exclude Others From Private Property: A Frmdamerrtal Coastimtional Right, 3 Wash. I. Law and Property 39 (2000). Together, these two cases requve that to pass constitutional muster, hard development conditions imposed by governmrnt: i. must seek to promote a legitimate state interest; ii. moat be related to the land development pmjcet upon which they are being levied by means of a rational or essential nexus; iii. must be proportional to the need or problem which the land development project is expected to cause, and the project must accordingly benefit from the condition imposed. Under the finat standard, legitimate state interest, an agexicy tray only require a landowner to dedicate land (or inurests in land) or contribute money for public projects and purposes, such es streets, roads and other public facilities and, presumably, for access to a public asset in Hawaii, lr7re a beach. Under the second standazd, essential nexus, an agency must find s close connection between the need or problem generated by the proposed development and the land or other exaction or fee regttircd from the landowner/developer. Thus, for exatuple, a modest coastal resort development could not poasbly justify a requirarrwt that a landowner dedicate an easement to a public beach. t2